DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
This office action fully acknowledges Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed 11 March 2026.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are pending.
Claim 5 is cancelled.
No claims are withdrawn.
No claims are newly added.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “an aspiration probe with an at least partially coaxially surrounding a lead screw”, wherein it appears Applicant intends to recite “an aspiration probe at least partially coaxially surrounding a lead screw”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Londo et al. (US 2012/0055269 A1) hereinafter “Londo”, in view of Li et al. (US 2006/0216208 A1), hereinafter “Li”.
Regarding Claim 1, Londo teaches a device for aspirating samples or reagents ([0008] and Fig. 2 part 47: “sampling probe”), comprising a lift chassis ([0112]: “The carrier 86 enables the gang of probes to be moved as a unit…” – Fig. 20: The carrier 86 is shown as a chassis that provides support framework to the probes.), a lead screw motor with a motor housing (Figs. 3 and 6 show the motor 113 as being within a motor housing – see also para. [0092]: “The motor and speed reducer may be assembled in the housing 120...”.) comprising a rotatable spindle nut; an aspiration probe which has a lead screw running through the spindle nut of the motor and the spindle nut is rotable only relative to the motor housing and the lift chassis ([0016]: “The drive assembly comprises a housing having a center guide passage, an electric motor within the housing, a screw coaxially aligned with and coupled to the motor for rotation of the screw when the motor is operated, and a nut constrained in the center guide passage of the housing for linear movement…” – Fig. 6 shows lead screw 115 as threaded through spindle nut 128. – Further, given that the nut 128 is “threaded into the collar 126” ([0091]), it is thereby “rotable” – able to be rotated”, relative to the motor housing 120 ([0092]).), as in Claim 1.
While Londo does not specifically teach the lead screw as being on an outer side of the integrated aspiration probe as in Claim 1, or the motor being connected to the chassis as in Claim 1, the device having the claimed relative arrangement of parts would not perform differently than the prior art device, absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the position of said lead screw and/or motor – see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C). Further, merely making integral as one piece what exists in the prior art as separate pieces absent any criticality or unexpected result is an obvious matter of design choice – see MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B) – See also the response to arguments below.
Further regarding Claim 1, Londo does not specifically teach the sampling probe discussed above wherein the spindle nut is within the rotor of the motor for the lead screw to engage into, and wherein the aspiration probe at least partially coaxially surrounds the lead screw, as in Claim 1.
However, Li teaches a respective laboratory apparatus for aspirating liquids (Abstract) comprising a motor M2 with a lead screw 30 passing fully therethrough, the motor M2 having a spindle nut arranged in its rotor so as to advance or retract the lead screw (Fig. 3 and [0022]: “When drive member 30 comprises a conventional lead screw, motor M2 contains a rotatably-mounted nut having an internal thread that drivingly-engages the spirally wound thread of the lead screw. In response to an energizing current, motor M2 operates to incrementally rotate such nut, thereby advancing the lead screw axially, with respect to the motor housing, along the Z-axis.”). Therein, one skilled in the art would recognize this arrangement of Li as an obvious alternative to that of Londo achieving the identical function of advancing a linear member for aspirating a liquid.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the sampling probe of Londo wherein the spindle nut is within the rotor of the motor for the lead screw to engage into, such as disclosed by Li, as a mere obvious alternative arrangement of elements (lead screw, spindle nut, motor) achieving the identical function of advancing a linear member for liquid sampling.
Further, Li teaches the lead screw 30 as being coaxially surrounded by a probe head 34 for applying downward pressure to sample containers when pierced by the probe held by the holder 52. In Li, this arrangement is necessary for vertical actuation via actuation of the lead screw (See paras. [0023-0024].). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that when modifying the device of Londo with the lead screw arrangement of Li, to provide the aspiration probe head as at least partially coaxially surrounding the lead screw, as set forth by Li so as to achieve vertical actuation of the probe head upon vertical actuation of the rotating lead screw.
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Londo teaches the sampling probe discussed above wherein a distribution board is present for controlling the motor ([0093]: “…a circuit board 134 suitably electrically connected to the motor of the motor assembly (such as by a flexible printed circuit connector 135 in the manner shown in FIG. 3C) and secured in the drive module housing by a potting compound…”), as in Claim 2.
While Londo does not specifically teach said circuit board 134 as being “attached to the lift chassis” as in Claim 2, the device having the claimed relative arrangement of parts would not perform differently than the prior art device, absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the position of said circuit board – see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C).
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Londo teaches the sampling probe discussed above wherein the aspiration probe is vertically oriented (Fig. 1 shows sampling probes 22a as being vertically oriented.) (See 35 USC § 112 section above (page 3) for interpretation of the term “vertically oriented”.), as in Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 5, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Londo teaches the sampling probe discussed above where a rear motor cap is located on the upper side of the motor and a front motor cap is located on the underside of the motor (The terms “front” and “rear” relating to the motor cap are nominal designations not given patentable weight. -- Given that the instant specification describes the motor cap simply as “part of the stator housing” ([0065]), and that Londo shows motor assembly 113 as being contained completely within cylindrical housing 120 (Fig. 6) (Fig. 5 shows motor assembly 115 as cylindrical.), the front and rear motor caps are simply the upper side end face and underside end face of cylindrical housing 120 (See 35 USC § 112 section above (page 3) for interpretation of the terms “upper side” and “underside”, noting that plunger rod 97 of Londo is interpreted as the aspiration probe head (Fig. 3).).), as in Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Londo teaches the sampling probe discussed above wherein the aspiration probe comprises an aspiration needle connected to a lead screw which is connected to an aspiration probe head (Fig. 3 shows lead screw 115 as being connected to nut 110, which connects to plunger rod 97 (interpreted as the aspiration probe head) which is actuated to cause liquid to be aspirated through needle 88 into inner chamber 94.), as in Claim 8.
While Londo does not specifically teach the aspiration needle as being partially enclosed by the lead screw as in Claim 8, the device having the claimed relative arrangement of parts would not perform differently than the prior art device, absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the position of said lead screw – see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C).
Regarding Claim 9, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 8 as discussed above. Further, while Londo does not teach the lead screw and aspiration probe head as being one integral part as in Claim 9, the device having the claimed integral lead screw and probe head would not perform differently than the prior art device teaching a lead screw and probe head as two separate parts connected together, absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the integral nature of said lead screw and probe head – see MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B).
Further, it is an obvious engineering choice to fabricate the lead screw element and the aspiration probe element as one integral component to minimize device size and complexity.
Claims 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Londo in view of Li, as applied to Claims 1-3 and 8-9, in view of Bradley et al. (US4478095A) referred to herein as “Bradley”, Rose et al. (US20180364269A1) referred to herein as “Rose”, and Smalley (Wave Spring Guide: A Brief Overview) referred to herein as “Smalley”, and as evidenced through Chalmers “Electric Motor Handbook” (1988) (Page 1) referred to herein as “Chalmers”. Londo has been discussed above.
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Londo teaches the sampling probe discussed above where the spindle nut is connected to a rotor with plain bearing or linear ball bearings (Fig. 6 shows spindle nut 128 as connected to rotor 121 comprising ball bearings 124.), as in Claim 4.
Further, given that Londo teaches motor assembly 113 as being an electric motor ([0016]), a stator, as required by Claim 4, must necessarily exist because a stator is an inherent part of any electric motor, as evidenced through Chalmers, Electric Motor Handbook (1988) (Page 1: “All electric motors have certain basic features in common. Each has a stationary member, the stator…”).
While Londo does not specifically teach said stator as surrounding the rotor as in Claim 4, or the spindle nut 128 as being within (inside of) rotor 121 as in Claim 4, the device having the claimed relative arrangement of parts would not perform differently than the prior art device, absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the position of said stator and/or spindle nut – see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C).
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, while Londo teaches the sampling probe discussed above, Londo does not teach a wave compression spring arranged between an upper ball bearing and the rear motor cap, as in Claim 6.
However, Bradley teaches an autosampler mechanism comprising vial return spring 67 which allows the tower assembly 33 (interpreted as the sample probe) to move vertically while being biased in the downward direction towards vials to be sampled (col. 4, line 45 and Fig. 2).
A return spring increases the tolerance and reliable positioning of the probe to ensure error-free liquid handling, as evidenced by Rose, which teaches a device for automatic sampling.
While the springs taught by Bradley and Rose are coil springs, both coil springs and wave compression springs are known in the art to perform the same function of acting as a compressible member. Further, wave compression springs are known in the art to occupy less space than a coil spring, as evidenced by Smalley, Wave Spring Guide: A Brief Overview (2021) (“…a wave compression spring can offer the same spring force as a traditional round wire coil spring but at 50% of its operating height.”).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the sampling probe taught by Londo to incorporate a wave compression spring taught by Bradley/Rose/Smalley, to increase the tolerance and reliable positioning of the probe to reduce error in liquid handling while minimizing instrument size and complexity.
While Londo/Bradley/Rose/Smalley does not teach said wave compression spring as being arranged between an upper ball bearing and the rear motor cap as in Claim 6 (See 35 USC § 112 section above (page 3) for interpretation of the terms “upper side” and “underside” relating to the motor, to which the front and rear motor caps are related by Claim 5.), the device having the claimed relative arrangement of parts would not perform differently than the prior art device, absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the position of said spring – see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C).
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 4 as discussed above. Further, Londo teaches the sampling probe discussed above where the spindle nut, ball bearings, stator, rear motor cap and front motor cap, and wave compression spring (taught by Bradley/Rose/Smalley) are accommodated in a motor housing (Londo Fig. 3 shows all mechanical components of the probe as being contained within probe housing 85. By this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Londo to position said wave compression spring suggested by Bradley/Rose/Smalley within a device housing such as to protect said wave compression spring from damage.), as in Claim 7.
Claims 10-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Londo in view of Li, as applied to Claims 1-3 and 8-9 above, and in further view of Bradley, and Freeman (US8965476B2) referred to herein as “Freeman”.
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 8 as discussed above. Further, while Londo teaches the sampling probe discussed above, Londo does not teach the aspiration probe head comprising a hose connection and one side a probe flag, as in Claim 10.
However, Bradley teaches an autosampler mechanism where the tower assembly 33 (interpreted as the aspiration probe) comprises sample line 49 (interpreted as a hose connection) for transporting liquid samples drawn up and ejected through inner needle 37 (Fig. 2).
Further, Freeman teaches a body fluid testing device where a lancet (interpreted as the probe head) has on one side a probe flag (Fig. 4: Parts 26 and 34 form the flag, on top of which sits lancet 24, attaching to the flag only on one side.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to incorporate the hose connection assembly taught by Bradley, as well as the probe-flag assembly taught by Freeman, with the sampling probe taught by Londo to increase laboratory efficiency by allowing samples to travel through pipes instead of needing to move the entire sampling manifold, and allowing controlled one-dimensional movement of the sample head, preventing the needle from puncturing an area other than the intended target.
Regarding Claim 11, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 10 as discussed above. Further, Londo/Bradley/Freeman teaches the autosampler mechanism discussed above where an upper end of a tubing of the aspiration probe is the hose connection (Bradley Fig. 2 shows annular passageway 41 (interpreted as an upper end of a tubing of the aspiration probe) as the connection to sample line 49 (interpreted as the hose).), as in Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 14, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 10 as discussed above. Further, Londo/Bradley/Freeman teaches a sampling probe discussed above having a linear guiding with a cross section for accommodating the probe flag of the aspiration probe head having a corresponding cross-section (Freeman Fig. 4 shows a rectangular depression formed within housing 22 for accommodating flag 26.), as in Claim 14.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Londo in view of Li, as applied to Claims 1-3 and 8-9 above, and in further view of Cui et al. (US20220016633A1) referred to herein as “Cui”.
Regarding Claim 12, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 8 as discussed above. Further, while Londo teaches the sampling probe as discussed above, Londo does not teach the aspiration probe head comprises cut-outs as indicator windows through which the transparent inner tubing of the aspiration probe is visible, as in Claim 12.
However, Cui teaches a portable sample loading device (interpreted as an aspiration probe given that liquid samples are loaded into sample loading connector 3 and then aspirated into flow cell 2 via capillary force) comprising visualization window 15 (interpreted as a cut-out of front surface 12) for visualizing the states of biological samples in the flow cell 2 (interpreted as transparent tubing given that flow cell 2 is described as having channels (interpreted as tubes) ([0102]) and samples within said channels are able to be viewed through transparent viewing window 15, thus the channels must also be transparent to enable visualization ([0073] and Fig. 3).).
While Cui does not specifically teach multiple windows, Cui does not preclude multiple windows, and the device is capable of having multiple windows, absent evidence to the contrary. Cui further teaches the benefit of said viewing window as being able to evaluate a sample within the device, such as to determine if unexpected bubbles entered the system. Thus, it is an obvious engineering design choice to utilize a plurality of windows, as in Claim 12, in order to afford better viewing and optical evaluation of the sample.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine the sampling probe taught by Londo with the viewing windows suggested by Cui for the purpose of being able to effectively visually evaluate samples as they are handled by the apparatus to reduce error.
Regarding Claim 13, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, the term “slotted” is interpreted as “having one or more long, narrow apertures or slits” (Oxford English Dictionary). Londo/Cui teaches the aspiration probe as slotted (Cui Fig. 1 shows the viewing window 15 as being elongated), as in Claim 13.
While Cui does not specifically teach said slots as being on the lower end of the probe, as in Claim 13, the device having the claimed relative arrangement of parts would not perform differently than the prior art device, absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the position of said slots – see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it to be an obvious engineering choice to position said viewing windows/cut-outs/slots on the lower end of the probe head, as in Claim 13, given that the lower end of the probe head is the end coming into contact with and aspirating liquid samples, such that samples are visible approximately as soon as they enter the apparatus, allowing for assessment of samples sooner than if said viewing windows/cut-outs/slots were positioned on an upper end of the probe head, saving time and preventing sample from being wasted via mishandling by the apparatus.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Londo in view of Li, Bradley, and Freeman, as applied to claims 10-11 and 14 above, and in further in view of Stone et al. (US4713974A) referred to herein as “Stone”, and Kuehn et al. (US9598226B2) referred to herein as “Kuehn”.
Regarding Claim 15, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above. Further, while Londo/Bradley/Freeman teaches the sampling probe discussed above as having a lift connector for connecting the device to control member of a connected device (Londo Figs. 9 and 12 show connector assembly 136 having electrical contact members 166a and 166b to allow control by gripper 143 via gripper fingers 146.), and a motor connector for connecting the distribution board to the motor and an additional connector for further external devices (Fig. 3 shows motor control circuitry 143 connecting circuit board 134 to motor assembly 113 as well as to connector module 70 for connecting to the external gripper.), Londo/Bradley/Freeman does not teach at least one initialization sensor which surrounds at on two sides the aspiration probe, or an aspiration monitoring sensor surrounding the aspiration probe at least on two sides, as in Claim 15.
However, Stone teaches an autosampler mechanism having a sensor assembly utilizing an upper optical sensor 328 (interpreted as the initialization sensor given that Stone teaches that when said upper optical sensor is triggered, movement of a carousel 60 is initialized ([19])) for detecting the presence of flag 327 mounted on section 326 when the vial stabilizer is in the down position ([19] and Fig. 3). Stone teaches the benefit of said sensor assembly as ensuring the needle is completely retracted before the vial moves, preventing self-inflicted mechanical damage due to improper calibration or alignment.
Further, Kuehn teaches a liquid handling device where a fluid sensor 26 (interpreted as the aspiration monitoring sensor given that Kuehn states: “The fluid sensor 26 senses the presence or absence of the fluid 22 within the reservoir 20...” (col. 7, line 29).) Kuehn teaches the benefit of said sensor assembly as allowing for the monitoring of the consumption of fluid 22 in the fluid reservoir 20.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the sampling probe taught by Londo/Bradley/Freeman with the initialization sensor taught by Stone to confirm the probe’s position and prevent mechanical failure, and with the aspiration monitoring sensor taught by Kuehn to detect if fluid is successfully aspirated and/or ejected.
While Londo/Bradley/Freeman/Stone/Kuehn does not specifically teach either the initialization sensor or the aspiration monitoring sensor as surrounding the aspiration probe at least on two sides as in Claim 15, the device having the claimed relative arrangement of parts would not perform differently than the prior art device, absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the position of said sensors – see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C).
Further, given that both sensors are taught as optical sensors which inherently have a light source and an optical detector, modifying said initialization sensor and said aspiration monitoring sensor to surround the aspiration probe at least on two sides is an obvious engineering design choice to modify Londo/Bradley/Freeman/Stone/Kuehn as such so as to allow a beam of light emitted by the source component of the sensor to pass through the aspiration probe before reaching the detector component of the sensor, to allow the beam of light to interact with fluid sample within the probe head in the case of the aspiration monitoring sensor, and to allow the beam of light to interact with physical elements of the aspiration probe in the case of the initialization sensor.
Regarding Claim 16, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 15 (Claim 16 is interpreted as depending on Claim 15 instead of Claim 10) as discussed above. Further, Londo/Bradley/Freeman/Stone/Kuehn teaches the sampling probe discussed above having an initialization sensor wherein the initialization sensor is a light barrier (Stone [19]: “The lowest optical sensor 223 is interrupted by the lower flag 222 mounted on section 221 when the vial pusher 200 is in the fully down position. This alerts the control unit that the carousel may be moved.” – Said lower flag 222 is interpreted as the light barrier.), as in Claim 16.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Londo in view of Li, as applied to Claims 1-3 and 8-9 above, and in further view of Orr et al. (US4872353A) referred to herein as “Orr”.
Regarding Claim 17, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, while Londo teaches the sampling probe discussed above, Londo does not teach the upper part of the lift chassis comprising a hose locking adapter which comprises a cylindrical part for accommodating an aspiration hose and on one end a cantilever for fixation of the locking adapter in the lift chassis, as in Claim 17.
However, Orr teaches an automated sample feeder apparatus where a tube 85 for delivering liquid to a vial is passed from the top of a platform 68 (interpreted as the hose locking adapter) through an opening 86 (interpreted as the cylindrical part for accommodating an aspiration hose), and extends downwardly alongside the stirrer shaft 74 (Fig. 1 and Fig. 4). Further, the platform 68 is secured to elevator block 58 via a cantilever. The opening 86 positions the fluid tube such that it terminates above the stirrer blade 75 so that fluid pumped through the tube 85 into a beaker will strike the stirrer blade 75, thus restricting the position of the tube to the desired location and preventing it from interfering with moving parts of the apparatus, preventing mechanical failure.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine the sampling probe taught by Londo with the hose locking adapter taught by Orr to prevent unwanted movement of the tube that could interfere with other parts and cause mechanical failure of the apparatus.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Londo in view of Li and Orr, as applied to Claim 17 above, and in further view of Carney et al. (US6859271B1) referred to herein as “Carney”, and de Bruyne et al. (US3998435A) referred to herein as “de Bruyne”.
Regarding Claim 18, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, while Londo/Orr teaches the sampling probe discussed above having a tube holder, Londo/Orr does not teach the lift chassis comprising at least one of selected from the group consisting of a motor interface for fixation of the motor on its underside, recesses on its lateral sides for fixation of aspiration hoses, a vertical orientated linear guiding for the aspiration probe and a hole for taking up the hose locking adapter, as in Claim 18.
However, Carney teaches a device for providing samples to a measuring and testing apparatus where an arm linear motor 405 is attached to the bottom of vertical frame 400 (interpreted as the chassis) using a set of fasteners 7012 and isolators 462 (interpreted as the interface for fixation of the motor) (Fig. 8). Carney further teaches the advantage of this assembly as providing mechanical vibration isolation of said motor (col. 11, line 25).
Further, de Bruyne teaches an apparatus for delivering and retrieving liquid to a stirring reactor comprising a stainless ring 102 (interpreted as the chassis) having three equi-spaced recesses 103 on its lateral sides for the fixation of hoses 109. De Bruyne also teaches the hole bordered by ring 107 for taking up motor assembly 90 (interpreted as the hose locking adapter) to which hoses 109 are locked via inlet conduits 22. De Bruyne further teaches the benefit of this assembly as functionally gripping and holding in place supply tubes 109, preventing them from unexpectedly dislodging from inlet conduits 22 and causing liquid to be spilled.
Further, Orr teaches vertical guide rods 55 (interpreted as vertical orientated linear guiding for the probe) to which elevator block 58 is slidably mounted. Orr teaches the benefit of this assembly as allowing elevator block 58 to move up or down when drive screw 60 is rotated.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine the sampling probe taught by Londo/Orr with any of the following: the motor interface taught by Carney to improve vibrational isolation of the motor, the hose-locking assembly taught by de Bruyne to prevent hoses from coming dislodged and spilling liquid reagent chemicals, the vertical guiding assembly taught by Orr to allow the assembly to be vertically actuated when the lead screw is rotated.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Londo in view of Li, as applied to Claims 1-3 and 8-9 above, and in further view of Bradley.
Regarding Claim 19, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, while Londo teaches the sampling probe discussed above, Londo does not teach a dispense manifold that is mounted to the underside of the motor, wherein the dispense manifold comprises a baseplate comprising a switching valve connected to a liquid supply, an injector nozzle connected to the switching valve, wherein the injector nozzles outlet is directed towards the lower end of the aspiration probe, as in Claim 19.
However, Bradley teaches an autosampler mechanism 21 where the manifold comprises sample injector switching valve 51 connected to liquid supply 151 via solvent line 147 (Figs. 1 and 2). Further, Bradley teaches sample line 49 as connecting switching valve 51 to the injector needle 37, which is directed towards the lower end 38 of the aspiration probe (Figs. 1 and 2). Bradley further describes the benefit of this assembly as blocking any return flow back to the sample line 49 (col. 7, line 55).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine the sampling probe taught by Londo with the valve assembly taught by Bradley to prevent return flow to the sample line.
Further, given that the “underside” of a cylindrical motor assembly (Bradley Fig. 3 shows motor 93 as cylindrical.) is interpreted as the end face of the cylinder closest to the aspiration probe head (See 35 USC § 112 section above (page 3) for interpretation of the term “underside”.), and that the aspiration probe head in Bradley is interpreted as lower end 40 (Fig. 2), the dispense manifold (interpreted as the connected elements of frame 23 and tower assembly 33) is thus mounted to the underside of the motor, as in Claim 19.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Londo in view of Li, as applied to Claims 1-3 and 8-9 above, and in further view of Nichols et al. (US PAT 4,089,624 A), hereinafter “Nichols”.
Regarding Claim 20, Londo teaches a device for aspirating samples or reagents ([0008] and Fig. 2 part 47: “sampling probe”), comprising a lift chassis ([0112]: “The carrier 86 enables the gang of probes to be moved as a unit…” – Fig. 20: The carrier 86 is shown as a chassis that provides support framework to the probes.),
a motor, an aspiration probe which has a lead screw running through the motor via a connected rotable spindle nut of the rotor ([0016]: “The drive assembly comprises a housing having a center guide passage, an electric motor within the housing, a screw coaxially aligned with and coupled to the motor for rotation of the screw when the motor is operated, and a nut constrained in the center guide passage of the housing for linear movement…” – Fig. 6 shows lead screw 115 as threaded through spindle nut 128.), as in Claim 20.
Further regarding Claim 20, Londo does not specifically teach the probe discussed above wherein the motor is for driving a rotable spindle nut, as in Claim 20.
However, Li teaches a respective laboratory apparatus for aspirating liquids (Abstract) comprising a motor M2 with a lead screw 30 passing fully therethrough, the motor M2 having a spindle nut arranged in its rotor so as to advance or retract the lead screw (Fig. 3 and [0022]: “When drive member 30 comprises a conventional lead screw, motor M2 contains a rotatably-mounted nut having an internal thread that drivingly-engages the spirally wound thread of the lead screw. In response to an energizing current, motor M2 operates to incrementally rotate such nut, thereby advancing the lead screw axially, with respect to the motor housing, along the Z-axis.”). Therein, one skilled in the art would recognize this arrangement of Li as an obvious alternative to that of Londo achieving the identical function of advancing a linear member for aspirating a liquid.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the sampling probe of Londo wherein the motor is for driving a rotable spindle nut, such as suggested by Li, as a mere obvious alternative arrangement of elements (lead screw, spindle nut, motor) achieving the identical function of advancing a linear member for liquid sampling.
Further regarding Claim 20, while Londo does not specifically teach the lead screw as surrounding on the outer side of the integrated aspiration probe as in Claim 20, the device having the claimed relative arrangement of parts would not perform differently than the prior art device, absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the position of said lead screw and/or motor – see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C). Further, merely making integral as one piece what exists in the prior art as separate pieces absent any criticality or unexpected result is an obvious matter of design choice – see MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B).
Further, Nichols teaches a lead screw 37 as surrounding the outer side of the integrated aspirator 35 (Fig. 2) wherein this integration effects movement of the aspirator 35 (Figs. 3-5).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to provide the lead screw as surrounding the aspirator, such as suggested by Nichols, as such an arrangement is a mere obvious alternative for effecting axial movement in Londo representing choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success and would thereby be obvious to try, and would have a reasonable expectation of success in Londo.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments are on the alleged grounds that the previously applied prior art of Londo provides a spindle nut 110 which does not itself rotate but rather moves axially in response to rotation of the lead screw, and that the nut 128 of Londo (Fig. 6) previously interpreted as the spindle nut cannot be interpreted as such in view of the instant amendments because the nut 128 is threaded into the collar 126 and consequently cannot rotate only relative to the housing/chassis.
Applicant’s arguments in view of the instant clarifying amendments are persuasive over Londo. However, Applicant’s amendments requiring the spindle nut be rotable relative only to the housing and lift chassis (instead of rotable/capable of being rotated in general), requiring the spindle nut be within the rotor of the lead screw motor, and the aspiration probe at least partially coaxially surrounding the lead screw necessitated the addition of the prior art of Li herein. Li teaches a respective laboratory apparatus for aspirating liquids (Abstract) comprising a motor M2 with a lead screw 30 passing fully therethrough, the motor M2 having a spindle nut arranged in its rotor so as to advance or retract the lead screw. Therein, one skilled in the art would recognize this arrangement of Li as an obvious alternative to that of Londo achieving the identical function of advancing a linear member for aspirating a liquid.
Thus, Examiner sets forth the rejection of Claims 1-3 and 8-9 (and further dependents thereof) as unpatentable under 35 USC 103 over at least Londo in view of Li, as discussed above in the body of the action and as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN KASS whose telephone number is (703)756-5501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center; and visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you need assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/B.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/NEIL N TURK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights